And you know those bad guys aren't having a good day.
And don't forget the AH-1 Apache for close troop support.
Seriously, you think you can take on an enemy armed with things like the MLRS, A10 Warthog, Apache AH1, etcetera?
Gmme a break, you reality challenged morons.
With weapons like these how could Iraq and Afghanistan lasted more than a week?
ReplyDeleteLet me be clear regarding my position. I've seen combat. There is nothing good about it. All the people I know who have been in combat say the same thing. It's bad. I have yet to meet a combat veteran who prefers war over peace. Anyone who longs for or wants war is a fool, both intellectual and moral. War, civil or otherwise, is a Bad Thing.
ReplyDeleteI've posted my feelings about this a couple of times. Here's one: http://retiredmustang.blogspot.com/2013/02/did-you-think-about-this-even-little.html
Here's the other: http://retiredmustang.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-be-stupid.html
It is a fact that no one anywhere in the world wants to go head-to-head against the United States in a conventional war. Doing so is a recipe for disaster and an invitation to have your country destroyed.
In spite of US military might, history, both recent and otherwise, tells us that a dedicated force, engaging in prolonged non-conventional warfare can hold a first class military power at bay...if committed to whatever it has as a cause and if its members are willing to pay the price some of them inevitably will. Such a force does not have to win. It merely has to survive, not lose and not quit.
Let's pretend the Bad Thing happens. Now, I have no idea if those who see armed rebellion coming are that dedicated. Even if some are, I'm confident some are not. Some will decide early on that the principles they have long espoused are suddenly not as important as they once were. Others will see their first firefight and have a sudden change of heart. Some will probably, and foolishly, try to go head to head with well armed military units and die in the ensuing firefight. And some will be completely committed to their cause, regardless of the cost. None of which has any direct bearing on whether an armed uprising COULD succeed. It could. Whether it's likely to succeed is a different issue. There are more factors that would help determine the likelihood of success than I have space to discuss here, but one to be considered is this: How likely are US troops to fire on their fellow citizens? In the presence of conflicting predictions made by people on both sides of the debate, the answer to this question is not clear at all. I've known active duty people who come down firmly on both sides of this question. Based on conversations I've had over the years I suspect the answer would depend on 1)the individual service member 2)the nature of the rebellion and 3)what factors precipitated the rebellion.
It's wrong to suggest that there are no circumstances under which an armed rebellion (which I neither desire nor see coming) in this country could succeed. History tells us otherwise. Believe it if you want, but just like those woefully ill informed souls who think war and combat are glorious, you're a fool if you do.
Why is the US Government waging war on its citizens?
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
“All the extravagance and incompetence of our present Government is due, in the main, to lawyers, and, in part at least, to good ones. They are responsible for nine-tenths of the useless and vicious laws that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils that go with the vain attempt to enforce them. Every Federal judge is a lawyer. So are most Congressmen. Every invasion of the plain rights of the citizens has a lawyer behind it. If all lawyers were hanged tomorrow, and their bones sold to a mah jong factory, we’d be freer and safer, and our taxes would be reduced by almost a half.” H.L. Mencken
Anonymous beat me to the comment. Laci, you've posted this before, and you've been asked the same question before. When are you going to answer it?
ReplyDeleteYou are obviously unaware of how flattened these countries have been by the wars.
ReplyDeleteSo you think Americans in general will support the flattening of their cities in response to a guerrilla uprising of rebels here?
DeleteI should also add that if you are gonna be big and brave--you can't get all whiny when someone says things like "I hope you shoot yourselves" or "a few nukes will sort them out."
DeleteIt's a wee bit of false bravado to say things like you did and start pissing yourselves at toothless comments and saying they are threats.
Because when the shit hits the fan...
Stanley Holloway and Rex Harrison were leaving the theater one evening when a woman came up to Harrison and requested an autograph. Harrison rebuffed her, whereupon she smacked him a good one. Holloway remarked that this was the first time he'd seen the fan hit the shit.
DeleteLaci - I am not a gun owner, never intend to be a gun owner, and have no intention of rebelling against the government. However, if the government were to launch MLRSs into an American city or nuke an American city, or have A-10 warthogs performing strafing runs through a city street, then I would have to rethink my positions on said government. There is no way the majority of Americans would support mass bombing of a city as an effort to put down a rebellion. I would hazard to guess that most military personnel would refuse such an order if given.
DeleteI am very aware of how flattened those countries are. I'm equally aware that such flattening did not result in their being flattened into submission. Your argument that an armed rebellion cannot possibly succeed remains false.
DeleteTwo important points.
ReplyDelete(1) A person with a rifle standing out in the open will lose against an A-10 Warthog. So the smart soldier doesn't stand out in the open with a rifle and engage an A-10 Warthog. Rather, the wise soldier engages targets on his/her terms and at the time of his/her choosing to maximize the probability of a successful outcome.
(2) What makes you think all military service personnel will blindly follow orders and kill U.S. citizens? I have heard from several service members first hand and thousands second hand that they will not follow orders to kill U.S. citizens.
But don't take my word for it. Look up the "Oath Keepers" and similar movements. Oh, and look up all the County Sheriffs throughout the United States who have publicly stated they will protect their constituents from civilian disarmament.
If the federal government initiates hostilities, it isn't going to be just some back woods savage (the stereotype that elitist gun grabbers love to portray) standing up by themselves, it is going to be millions of people from the entire socio-economic sphere of the U.S. standing up.
- TruthBeTold
Laci, Lets look at how well the US has done in its wars where they had superior weapons. There's Vietnam, oops, we quit and then the side we were supporting was defeated one occupied. How about Iraq? Well, in essence the government we were supporting kicked us out, and now the Sunni/Shia violence is going back up. Maybe another Sadaam will take power and we can do it all over again. Afghanistan? Looking like we're leaving early again. We could start a pool to see how long it takes for the Taliban to be back in power. The first gulf war was a success because there were very strict criteria on when the mission was complete.
ReplyDeleteThe big challenge that has been plaguing these adventures is political will. Do you think the political will will get better or worse when they start bombing houses or grid squares?
"Seriously, you think you can take on an enemy armed with things like the MLRS, A10 Warthog, Apache AH1, etcetera?" Other people have. We left and they're still there. It's not a question of if it can be done. History has answered that question with a resounding "yes". "Will it be necessary?" is the real question and then, "will it succeed?" I just hope it never comes to that.
ReplyDeleteThe rebels were able to take down The Death Star. Twice!
ReplyDeleteBest comment ever!
DeleteIt's helpful to keep in mind that talk of civil war or armed resistance or whatever you want to call it is a pro-gun fantasy invented by insecure men who require self-aggrandizing ego inflation. The gun control suggestions are always in response to that.
ReplyDeleteNo, Mikeb, your proposals aren't in response to any actual evidence of need. The fact that you can't disagree with someone without playing psychology and being insulting is one reason that you will continue losing.
DeleteIf, in the context of the discussion of this post you're referring to the insistence that such a conflict cannot be won by those in revolt, then you're now engaging in childish logic.
DeleteParent: What you said isn't true.
Child: Yes, it is!
Parent: No, its not. Here's why (gives explanation or example).
Child: Well, yeah, but I only said it 'cause of what you said...